The Globalization Critical Movement | From Heroic Legends to Everyday Questions | The globalisation critical movement needs anti-patriarchal perspectives

Institutions like the IMF (International Monetary Fund) and the World Bank are not the only ones who are gender blind. Criticisms of them from leftist movements also adhere to traditional androcentric categories. But, as the consideration of gender relations shows, these categories are the foundations of neoliberal globalisation. Only a criticism, which transcends them and reaches into everyday life can open up space for alternative thought and action.

Ariane Brenssell

Considering the situation on our planet, radical social change is necessary – this sentence would surely find unconditional acceptance in vast areas of the globalisation critical movement. The fact that this would imply radical changes in the analytical approaches of the movement itself, its perspectives on domination and its own relationships, and therefore also changes within the left and its mainly patriarchal theory and political practice, would surely encounter less enthusiasm.

There is little change within the globalisation critical movement, at least as far as gender relations are concerned. ¹ At the large demonstration of trade union youth, the Peace Cooperative and Attac on September 14, 2002 in Cologne – under the slogan Let’s have a good life – male dominance was so apparent that a female journalist asked whether the programmes of the organisations present were as male as their speakers. She only received an evasive answer. The Attac Congress in Berlin in autumn 2001 also revealed an alarming result: Only about three or four out of the nearly 75 events included gender.

This silence is not a coincidence but a symptom. In feminist economy it has also been described as strategic silence (Bakker 1994) and it has been shown how this silence is created and determined within economic concepts. The spheres of reproduction where women are predominantly working and contributing to a large part of worldwide labour and wealth, are continuously excluded from analysis and theory – despite all assertions that it is necessary to include them. But this inclusion will not happen as long as the traditional concepts, categories and definitions are not fundamentally changed.² An example: productivity is not a gender-neutral but a patriarchal and androcentric concept. The general definition of ‘productivity’ excludes unpaid labour that achieves no profit on the market. Productivity is a term which is very relevant to practice because it provides the basis of the UN System of National Accounting (UNSNA) which contributes to the foundations of economical and political planning all over the world. This gender-blind perspective, which simply neglects to take account of unpaid labour, therefore encourages the gender-specific division of labour into the world economic system (Eichler 1994).

In the following paragraph, a few thoughts will be sketched out on the meaning of a feminist-anti-patriarchal perspective for a globalisation critical movement. This perspective is not restricted to politics of interest to the specific group ‘women.’ It implies not only women’s issues, such as the effects of globalisation on women or women as losers or winners in globalisation. ³ Moreover, gender has to be systematically included as a fundamental form of socialisation in the analysis and criticism of social order. The spheres of culture, everyday life and the personal sphere in social structures and institutions – all these have a gender-specific development. Domination, especially global domination by neoliberalism, is partly constructed upon this structure. Ignoring this reproduces dominant structures of thought. To acknowledge this fact entails more than just a correction within or addition to the existing (theoretical) framework – it would imply changing the framework itself.

Women’s oppression and discrimination, in addition to maintaining gender polarities in all their forms and shapes, are not side effects or accidental symptoms accompanying neoliberal globalisation. They are a main component of a global form of dominance, which structurally and systematically works to the advantage of corporate positions and profit interests. Everything that is not immediately useful to these is increasingly marginalised to the ‘backyard.’

A look at current developments shows that global actors / corporations are increasing their power over local conditions. They transform these in a way that marginalises everything which appears unprofitable to them. Dismantling the welfare state, privatisation of public services and duties lead to sustained shifts between the public and private sphere as well as between non-profit and profit areas, accompanied by the transformation of state and supra-state institutions and arrangements. These shifts economise the social side and subordinate it to efficiency criteria. The tasks that cannot be subordinated to these criteria are subject to further marginalisation. This does not mean that these activities are obsolete. On the contrary, they are still carried out, additionally and unpaid, beyond the catalogue of criteria and within smaller time slots – very often by women. Therefore, a ‘backyard’ which is not immediately regulated by laws of capital and does not follow the laws of profit and productivity increase is a central condition, a kind of underlying foundation of neoliberal globalisation.⁴ Thus the establishment of gender relations by the division of labour, the valuations, the concepts and (subjective feelings of) responsibilities is a precondition of neoliberal globalisation.

These are not questions which only concern women (as mothers). Gender relations determine the specific relationship between production and reproduction, and also regulate and value social tasks and activities. Therefore the silence about the meaning of gender relations becomes an important element of domination. Feminists have therefore called the globalisation discussions – including the discourse of the left – ‘narratives of eviction’: narratives, which cause something to disappear (Sassen 1998). Starting-points for change and alternatives are also abandoned by cutting out gender relations.

These (new) contradictions cannot be ascertained without a change of paradigm within leftist theory and politics, as Rossana Rossanda and Pietro Ingrao, two well-known Italian leftists, again put up for discussion in 1995.⁵ They advocated a fundamental change of course, starting out from the hypothesis that the left itself, by its way of constructing theory, actually obstructs the renewal of its ability to act and incapacitates its politics. They determined the supposed gender neutrality of leftist debates as an important issue.

In their sketch of ‘new contradictions’ they showed that the dimensions of social exclusion and ecological destruction as well as the increasing number of supposed ethnic conflicts can not be adequately explained with the traditional categories of leftist politics and theory. The orientation towards social concepts centred on wage-labour and traditional concepts of progress is androcentric, the two authors maintained. This orientation generalises ‘male’ socialization such as family wage form, the standard labour relations or technical solutions to social and ecological problems. All important questions beyond this focus remain invisible.
Therefore, Ingrao/Rossanda demand the left shift its horizons, which would then reveal other aspects of life and other political subjects (1996: 116). The rejection of a perspective, which the authors define as ‘male’ because it abstracts from the physical state, feelings and times of reproduction (1995: 428), is fundamental – a perspective which systematically ignores the constitution of domination in our way of life, our everyday life and our personal relations.⁶

Anti-patriarchal tracing of tracks – an expansion of reality

To counter the persistence of leftist theories with a bit of light-heartedness, I would like to undertake a small change of terrain. In literature, the magic of an anti-patriarchal perspective seems to be able to unfold much more directly. Maybe some of this could be rescued into the standardised and formalised canon of political and theoretical culture.

In ‘Cassandra,’ Christa Wolf starts a quest for ‘Cassandra,’ to find out who she was before she was seen – and discredited – through the male poet’s eyes: Who was Cassandra before anybody wrote about her? (127). Searching through a jungle of patriarchal viewpoints and interpretations, Christa Wolf discovers a woman – the prophet Cassandra – who has broken out of traditional patterns of thought and action and who can see and point out contradictions because she refuses to block out certain dimensions of reality. She gains a different perspective in this search that does not focus on (patriarchal) stories of heroes. Moreover, it is necessary to mention the ordinary, to concretely focus on the value of everyday life. The living subversive word, according to the book, should approach its material in all its interpretations ‘from below,’ which, now viewed through this different grid, will reveal previously unrecognised possibilities. (125) Thus new things could be explored ‘by widening the view-point, readjusting the depth of focus, my perceptual framework with which I perceive our time, all of us, you, myself, has changed considerably... If I try to realise what is happening and has happened, then it is, generally speaking, an expansion of what is real for me.’ (131)

What can today’s globalisation critical movement gain from Christa Wolf’s anti-patriarchal quest? For a start, there is a hope that dealing with ordinary, everyday questions could open perspectives on other realities or even previously unrecognised possibilities. How does neoliberal globalisation determine our living conditions, everyday lives, our personal abilities to act and our experiences? How do we arrange our own everyday lives, how do we handle contradictions, how do we address them, how do we deal with little everyday things? In doing this, we change the perspectives for action: spaces can be found and shaped so that those viewpoints and perspectives and also those everyday and personal problems, which are usually neglected, individualised, and remain unlinked to the ‘big story’ can be voiced and exchanged.

A globalisation critical movement, which does not address gender-specific inequalities and polarisation, however is in danger of reproducing existing power structures because it moves within fundamental thought structures of domination and within hegemonic structures of relevance. Viewpoints and perspectives are necessary which enable us to break out of the implications of dominant thought structures and to set other starting-points. A feminist anti-patriarchal perspective, which is not based on essentialisms and which does not reduce gender relations to questions of identity, but recognises these as a practice for maintaining domination, could offer an approach to this task.

A different movement – starting-point for alternatives

For example as a viewpoint for criticism: oppression, discrimination and marginalisation of women, the neglection of entire areas of labour, the devaluation of all which is considered ‘non-economical’ – all these cannot be equated congruently with the empirical group ‘women.’ But from this starting-point we can open a perspective towards the systematic and increasing marginalisation and devaluation of spheres and practices. In today’s relations of neoliberal globalisation it is usually – but not precisely always – women who are left with these tasks. A ‘woman’s viewpoint’ therefore becomes an important point of critical study (Hennessy 1993), from which it is possible to address the marginalisation of certain subject positions. This marginalisation is a specific characteristic of neoliberalism: the emphasis, suggestions and (obstructing) discourses of the dominant relations can be opposed with other questions, valuations, realities and possibilities, the thought of which neoliberalism already obstructs. ⁷

Different practices in the movement: domination on one side and us on the other? Smash Capitalism? Power and hegemony are not reproduced far away from one’s own actions but within these actions as well. To see everyday life as not disconnected from domination but to ask ‘how domination is reproduced daily’ (Haug 1994), makes other themes, approaches and correlation visible and liveable. For instance, the enforcement of the neoliberal logic of efficiency on an individual level corresponds closely to the management of personal leeway and time management: how do we organise our time? What do we spend time for, what would we like to have time for? The view from our own life shows that time is no quantitative entity but that time decides on spaces and possibilities for development.

All this, however, makes other movements necessary. What it means not to just criticise but to apply criticism in practice and enable the experience of something different, was and is a theme of the women’s movement and of local anti-war and anti-racist projects, etc. In these projects, other approaches to themes are proposed, positions and methods are elaborated which include one’s own involvement in power relations.⁸ Additionally, new cultures of discussion and forms of dialogue are tried out. As diverse as the suggestions and practices may be, they have one thing in common: ‘Solutions’ are not only expected from changing others, in a fight against ..., but start with the development of alternatives among and with each other. Everyday problems are not discussed in an abstract fashion (without a connection to a way of life, daily grind or personal experiences) but based on the different experience and perception of problems, the discussion can become a starting-point for developing common politics.⁹ The globalisation critical movements should enable spaces for such experiences to be able to develop new forms of criticism and alternatives.

These reflections are merely proposals for a somewhat different direction of thought and movement, to try out different means of criticism and discussion, to expand (one’s own) perspectives, to question the framework, to start a quest. This is linked to the wish that a criticism of society which would take the relationships to each other and to ourselves – the so-called small questions – as seriously as scandalising the politics of IMF and the WTO, would have already made the first steps towards the urgently needed social changes.

Ariane Brenssell is connected to the Anti-Patriarchal Network Berlin, she studies everyday life and gender in neoliberalism and the relationship between gender and war

References:

Bakker, Isabella (ed.): The strategic silence. Gender and economic policy, London/Ottawa 1994
Brenssell, Ariane: ‘Jenseits der Autonomie im Hinterland des Neoliberalismus,’ in: Psychologie und Gesellschaftskritik 24. Jg., Nr. 3-4/2000, S. 35-52
Eichler, Margrit 1994: ‘Sieben Weisen, den Sexismus zu erkennen,’ in: Das Argument 207, Heft 6
Haug, Frigga 1994: ‘Alltagsforschung als zivilgesellschaftliches Projekt,’ in: Das Argument 206 (1994), S. 639-658
Haug, Frigga: Knabenspiele und Menschheitsarbeit. ‘Geschlechterverhältnisse als Produktionsverhaeltnisse,’ in: Haug, Frigga: Frauen-Politiken, Hamburg 1996
Hennessy, Rosemary: Materialist Feminism and the Politics of Discourse, New York/London 1993
Ingrao, Pietro/ Rossana Rossanda: ‘Die neuen Widersprüche,’ in: Prokla 100 (1995), S. 409-430
Ingrao, Pietro/ Rossana Rossanda: Verabredungen zum Jahrhundertende, Hamburg 1996
Madoerin, Mascha: ‘Finanzsektor und die Macht, Sachzwaenge zu schaffen,’ in: Krondorfer/Mostboeck (eds.): Geld essen Kritik auf, Wien 2000
Sassen, Saskia: ‘Ueberlegungen zu einer feministischen Analyse der globalen Wirtschaft,’ in: Prokla 111 (1998), p. 199-216
Wolf, Christa: Voraussetzungen einer Erzaehlung: Kassandra, Darmstadt 1984

Footnotes:
¹ And this is surely not due to a lack of feminist or women-specific analyses criticising globalisation.
² Therefore one focus of feminist epistemology and science critique is the examination of the implications of seemingly gender-neutral terms.
³ This is not meant to imply that proving gender-specific inequalities is not important ‚ it keeps revealing the same severe dimensions of inequality. But it is even more important to show that these are structurally founded within the relations. For instance, the question whether women are the winners or losers of globalisation contains one problem, the fact that it is often neglected under which conditions women become winners of globalisation. These shortcomings lead to the discussions in which female leaders from Germany complain that US Americans are privileged because they can deduct their maids from taxes. Thus social criticism is abandoned or a very foreshortened view is cast on gender relations which is reduced to an individual level of the concrete possibilities of men and women.
⁴ This thought was developed by Rosa Luxemburg in ëThe Accumulation of Capitalí and extended in a feminist way by Frigga Haug (1996).
⁵ This criticism has been put forward quite often in Feminism
⁶The fact that such a shift in perspective would require the development of a new practice is shown by the continuation of the initiative. The proposal by Ingrao/ Rossanda was discussed in German in a traditional way ‚ i.e. focussing on political-economic institutions and arrangements, excluding everyday contradictions and gender-specific realities, therefore without subjects and gender-neutral (as documented in the book "Verabredungen zum Jahrhundertende" (appointments at the end of the century). The question of an access to political questions, which starts from the contradictions of conditions from below, was avoided.
⁷ cf. Brenssel 2000
⁸ The concept of "transversal politics"is applied in feminist projects and projects in crises areas (e.g. Israel- Palestine). This deals with the development of processes which oppose divisions and conflicts "from below": a central meaning is given to those processes which Italian feminists define as "rooting" or "shifting": each participant of the dialogue describes where her own sense of belonging and her own identity lies. At the same time, she tries to change her position to empower herself to an exchange with women of various backgrounds and different identities. (Cf. e.g.: Cynthia Cockburn: "The space between us", London 1998; Dan Bar-on: Die "Anderen in uns." Dialog als Modell der interkulturellen Konflikbewaltigung, Hamburg 2001).
⁹ Usually, however, political debates are determined by opinions on experiences. Consequently, a certain viewpoint of the problems is adopted and generalised which neglects other experiences. This viewpoint is then the starting point for all other reflections on social change.